"Gays
letter on oral sex fails to convince MPs" was a Straits Times headline
on Jan 29. 2004. The letter, submitted by People Like Us (PLU) was described
by the press as "emotionally charged" in the way it appealed
for homosexual oral sex to be decriminalized.

The letter
took the approach of asking MPs to consider gays who might be family members.
Gasp, you call that a sympathy-take? More like a backhanded plea to me.
One MP said, "Using statistical probability, why stop at homosexuality?

If there is a statistical probability that a certain percentage of people
will be pick-pockets, that will include MPs children and relatives
as well. So then what?" Ya, hor. In the olden days, homosexuals
were just as liable to be stoned to death as thieves, leh. Very
logical an analogy!

The Minister
of State (Community Development & Sports) naturally has the last word
on the matter in that report: "MPs are quite use to receiving such
emotionally charged letters, it is part of democracy. As a policy maker,
it is beneficial to listen to all views. It is our aim to cultivate an
open political culture. But we cannot rule by consensus."

Yes, Id
be the first to attest to the open-ness. Indeed, Id say were
quite open now  how else to explain for the XHo-Files not
being clamped down? So let me say it loud and proud: O-P-E-N. Thus reflecting
big-big on our democracy. No wonder Minister, leh.

Then, the
next day, one Singam fella wrote to the Straits Times Forum: "Isnt
it ruling by consensus to amend the law against oral sex to legalize only
heterosexual acts? While the laws of the land may reflect the moral mores
of society, what kind of morality are we trying to enshrine by this amendment?"

Well, Singam,
let me attempt to answer for Big Brother in ways even the greatest transparency
may not allow. The morality we enshrine is called Asian Values. If that
doesnt make sense, then lets call it Family Values. And in
Remaking $ingapore terms, that means the Pink Dollar Morality. Without
a stable economy or economic peace, how can the family stay afloat?
Go pick pocketing?

Maybe you
didnt hear Big Brother right when he announced last July that the
State finally accepts gays in the civil service. Like he knew you wouldnt
get it right, his foot-servants spelt it out just for people like you:
"Its all about tolerance, not gay rights. This is about economic
competitiveness" (ST, July 9, 2003). Best believe it, darling.

I think all
you cant-wait-for-a-Mardi-Gras rainbow-peeps also failed to read
my XHo Files properly last August when Id declared the phenomenon
to be as unique as $ingapore itself: HomoNosexual$ingapore. You may be
accepted as a homo, but you cant have sex cos its
just not legal, its that simple!

But why the
gay bathhouses and hangouts on our shores now, you ask? Consider it the
power of the pink eye-patch covering one eye of the law to prevent it
from busting the free-for-all carnal activities in those unnatural places.
Otherwise, its a plane-ticket to KL, BKK, HK and Taipei on every
long weekend to spend away our $ingapore dollar on those foreign shores,
dearie.

With brain-drain,
we can always resolve by justifying the need for foreign talents.
However, when it comes to money-drain theres no such simple foreign-exchange
solution. Hence, the outright plea for pink-dollar competitiveness,
lor. Actually, that competitiveness means attracting the foreign
pink dollar. But since we cannot be so blatantly discriminating
against our own queers, well just have to let people like you (PLU)
enjoy the newly opened-up and condoned gay-facilities, lor.

Thats
why we say tolerance and not gay rights. Your new cruising privileges
were really granted as a by-the-way. And by the way, the pink color itself
is really secondary. The clincher is the $ sign that marks the patch.
Read it the way it is transparently written: Pink DOLLAR.

Its
like this, the $ingapore Government, rebutting Amnesty Internationals
claim that $ingapore has the highest execution rate per capita in the
world, says: "The death penalty is not a burning issue in $ingapore"
(ST, Jan 31, 04). As Id pointed out last month in these Files,
simply say and it shall be so, tis the way of our unique $ingapore
State. You can burn your bra and toss your yu-sheng in bewilderment.
But if the national paper says it is so, you can bet your sweet honey
bun, it shall be so for the State. Besides, the Amnesty rebuttal appeared
in an ST column titled Did They Really Say That? Thats how facetiously
upbeat we are of our critics now. Shamelessly hip & funky, get it?
Learn or be squashed, PLUs!

In other
words, all you PLUs, if you want your gay sexual rights, forget the emotional
bargain. Dont forget, its the $ sign thats cleared the
way for you to practise bathhouse-cruising here on these shores. The MP
was ever so kind to hand you the big clue, though you thought nothing
of it  "pick-pockets"! So if you want your oral
rights, theres only one way  pick the fiscal rationale (and
I dont mean physical, you lustful people, you!).

Look to how
oral sex between homos can be beneficial to the State pocket. Or conversely,
show how penalizing gay oral sex will be detrimental to the States
pocket. Remember, like I said before, Pink DOLLAR = family values, thats
the way to go in our unique $ingapore.

After all,
even straight people got it down pat a long time ago when they declared
"No money, no honey". And just to prove how little youve
learned, PLUs when the Minister said "we cannot rule
by consensus", he is really being honest.